nikon d40 or d40x?

[thebeing]

hey, guys! i'm saving to make my big step to DSLR.
My budget isn't big (to tell the truth, i have no more than 200$ right now, but i could get some extra 200$ and could sell my finepix s5700 for about 250$). I so dreamed of nikon d60 (to be honest, more because of the VR kit lens), but the kit comes up to 700$...and that i can't afford.
So, i was thinking of gettin' a d40x. But then i thought... there is no BIG difference between d40 and d40x (except the price and the MP). D40x has 10MP, and the D40 6MP. But i saw on dpreview.com that the senzor size is the same...
So, what would you recommend?

And, another thing... for wedding photography, a good and cheap lens for one of these two? anyone?

thanx in advance!

[Not4wood]

Well first I'll speak of the "Weddings". If you are going to shoot anything that people are going to pay for, I would suggest that you get the equipment that will both perform in heavy shooting situations and that can produce shots that someone will be paying for and hopefully going to place on a wall.

Now, getting a Wedding covered I would highly suggest that you get a camera than can go as high as 10 MP for sales. So, that makes it a minimum of the D40X. As a Lens, you can go with the Kit Lens that is offered a 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF DX VR Lens but it depends on the package that is offered. I did a fast look and I didn't see a D40X in both B&H and Ritz so I am giving you the link for the D40 w/two lenses that could handle Weddings.

Nikon D40 Digital SLR Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55/55-200) - SLR1160 - RitzCamera.com

As far as Lenses go, as long as its a Sharp/fast lens you wont have a problem. My Kit Lens the 18-135 3.5-5.6 ED-IF is good enough for Weddings and I have the range of being both a baby Wide Angle and a baby Telephoto Portrait Lens.

[thebeing]

thanx a lot for the info!
Well, guess i'd better get some more money to buy a d40x and the 18-200... damn! it never gets any easier!
I dreamed of my fujifilm finepix s5700 for 3 months! now i'm gettin' depressed over a DSLR...i wonder what's next...uhm, glass i think it's the right answer... :|

[Not4wood]

Thnx for the K.

As for the money, tell me about it. I had gotten my New First Digital SLR right before Thanksgiving last year the D80 w/Kit Lens 18-135 3.5-5.6 ED-IF and I just bought my long lens, not as fast as I would have liked but I was running out of both time and I didn't have enough money to get the much faster lens. I ended up w/70-300 VR f:/4.5 and I have to work this lens to make sure I know what I'm doing. We are leaving to go on Vacation at the end of July and I want to be able to really enjoy my D80 Last week I also picked up a second battery so I do have the ability to keep on shooting and not be freaked that I have to go and charge.

[thebeing]

well, why don't u get a battery grip for the d80? that way, you could use AA batteries (rechargeable or not) too.

one more question... i saw a sigma 18-200 f/3.5 for less than 200$ on ebay... would you recommend it over the nikon 55-200?

[Not4wood]

Originally Posted by thebeing

well, why don't u get a battery grip for the d80? that way, you could use AA batteries (rechargeable or not) too.

one more question... i saw a sigma 18-200 f/3.5 for less than 200$ on ebay... would you recommend it over the nikon 55-200?

Sorry, I've never held either of these two fine Lenses in my hands. You have to wait for the experts to express which one is Sharper or try and go to the Reviews and see what others have to say. But, for Weddings when you sometimes need a Wide Angle shot for groups or to get a good BG in, I would say the 18-200 would be a better Lens for this purpose but you must check whether it feels good in your hands and how sharp. If its not sharp enough on your Camera, then its not practical for you and a waste of good moneies that could be better used somewhere else.

[INSOMNIAC269]

Honestly, you really need a faster lens (larger max. aperture) then the ones mentioned above to shoot a wedding. I normally use 28-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.8, and a Sigma 30 1.4. Church's are normally dimly lite, along with reception halls.

I would go with the D40X and keep the Finepix for back up, you don't want to rely on one camera in case of a failure. Don't forget your flash, SB600 or SB800's work well.

[thebeing]

...and so, seems like with less than 1000$ can't do a wedding...

[Not4wood]

Truth be told, remember its not the brush that paints the picture.

In this case, you Do Need quality to present to your clients since they will be paying a lot and a very high detailed session will be required. Can you do it with this equipment you already have? With the equipment you wanted to buy? Keep everything in mind, when your going shopping and picture yourself getting married and what you want to see as the results...

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by thebeing

...and so, seems like with less than 1000$ can't do a wedding...

Honestly, if you want to start doing weddings...do so by getting together with an established professional photographer and learn. Weddings are big events in people's lives and there are no "do-overs". It's working under pressure to get the images and it's a lot of work after the wedding to make sure everything is right.

If you're not ready to invest AT LEAST $3,000-$5,000 in equipment as a "get started" budget to do a wedding, you're not ready. In addition, be prepared to almost give away your work getting started so that folks will give you a chance. You'll get low budget weddings at first but you'll get the ever important examples to show off for future clients.

Churches are dimly lit. Flash inside the church is a rare luxury. You need backup equipment for EVERYTHING you are using. I take 3-5 battery powered flash units and I set up at least 2 studio strobes at the reception high in the air on radio triggers for ambient lighting at the dance floor and surrounding area. I usually have at least 2 camera bodies as does my partner. You'll need at least two camera bodies and you'll need to get that ever important liability insurance policy in place.

So... let's see...

Two $1,500 camera bodies let's say
Two battery powered flash units and one backup - $300 each... $900 total
Insurance - $400 (annual)
Flash bracket - $120
Nikon 17-55 - $1,200

Total - $5,620 at a minimum..... and you still don't have a backup lens or a second lens (tele) for the second body. Hope nothing breaks on you or stops working. If so, the liability insurance will come in handy when they file suit for you not being able to deliver images from their "once in a lifetime" day.

Brings me to the issue of formation of a limited liability corporation.... another $250 to the State, accountant / attorney to draft up the paperwork for you...say $400

Julio

[thebeing]

First of all, thank you for the reply (although you really broke my spirit).
second...in my country, things are a lil'bit different.
Gettin' together with an experienced photographer...well, people here go like "f*** this, i'm not teaching this guy anything. i don't want him to steal my clients".
The church...well, we're christians, but orthodox. Our churches are high (they have a dome in front of the "altar), and all the walls are painted, so...flash in a church is a "no way".
I also know that A LOT of wedding photographers here only use ONE camera. And,i don't talk about those "i'm doin' a weddin' now, and one next year" people, but people who do this constantly. I used to work at a...photographic studio (i think that's what it was...i was puttin' together images for wedding albums), and i saw pictures taken with a canon 5D and with other cameras (nikon d80, for example). I know a buddy of mine that did do weddings, and he has a canon 400D with a flash unit...and that's it.
So, might be different here from you, americans. I mean, IT IS different.
Even the equipment...it's hot damn expensive here. A nikon d40x kit, for example, is around 900$. So, gettin' all you suggested from a store here would get up to.......i don't even wanna think about that.
I know you suggested the "pro" way...but i can't afford to be one.
And, there's another issue. I saw on most wedding photographers' websites that the lowest package cost is around 700$. Here, only rich people would pay that amount for what it is offered.
I was told by 2 friends of mine that they wanted me to be the photographer for 2 weddings...the first one told me that i would get around 150$ for the wedding. And, here, a wedding lasts almost the whole day. (i mean, at least 8-10 hours)...

And, @not4wood: i don't think anyone would even bother trying to be a wedding photographer with the camera i now have (a fujifilm finepix s5700). It SUX for potriats, and the quality of the pictures drop drastically with dim light. And higher ISO is NOT an option. At iso 200, there is a LOT of noise in the picture. If i'd had a camera with which i could do a weddin' (more or less), i would have saved some more money to buy better equipment...that's what i wanna do now, i wanna get some equipment to be able to make some money with photography, not just...take shots of flowers and sunsets...

[Not4wood]

Originally Posted by thebeing

First of all, thank you for the reply (although you really broke my spirit).
second...in my country, things are a lil'bit different.
Gettin' together with an experienced photographer...well, people here go like "f*** this, i'm not teaching this guy anything. i don't want him to steal my clients".
The church...well, we're christians, but orthodox. Our churches are high (they have a dome in front of the "altar), and all the walls are painted, so...flash in a church is a "no way".
I also know that A LOT of wedding photographers here only use ONE camera. And,i don't talk about those "i'm doin' a weddin' now, and one next year" people, but people who do this constantly. I used to work at a...photographic studio (i think that's what it was...i was puttin' together images for wedding albums), and i saw pictures taken with a canon 5D and with other cameras (nikon d80, for example). I know a buddy of mine that did do weddings, and he has a canon 400D with a flash unit...and that's it.
So, might be different here from you, americans. I mean, IT IS different.
Even the equipment...it's hot damn expensive here. A nikon d40x kit, for example, is around 900$. So, gettin' all you suggested from a store here would get up to.......i don't even wanna think about that.
I know you suggested the "pro" way...but i can't afford to be one.
And, there's another issue. I saw on most wedding photographers' websites that the lowest package cost is around 700$. Here, only rich people would pay that amount for what it is offered.
I was told by 2 friends of mine that they wanted me to be the photographer for 2 weddings...the first one told me that i would get around 150$ for the wedding. And, here, a wedding lasts almost the whole day. (i mean, at least 8-10 hours)...

And, @not4wood: i don't think anyone would even bother trying to be a wedding photographer with the camera i now have (a fujifilm finepix s5700). It SUX for potriats, and the quality of the pictures drop drastically with dim light. And higher ISO is NOT an option. At iso 200, there is a LOT of noise in the picture. If i'd had a camera with which i could do a weddin' (more or less), i would have saved some more money to buy better equipment...that's what i wanna do now, i wanna get some equipment to be able to make some money with photography, not just...take shots of flowers and sunsets...

First, no matter where you are a Christian Wedding is about 8-12 Hours long. Now, the most important part in this whole thread is about money. If from what your saying, you will be getting paid $150 bucks for an 8 or better hour day I wouldn't shoot like crazy and I would wait for the very important or great shots.

Truthfully at those prices I wouldn't take this job anyway. For certain situations, for example like this evening I shot a party for Free for my friends wife. She just graduated College after changing Careers and got her second Masters Degree. I only shot in the low 80's and in Raw. Not a big deal, we all had a good time and I didn't kill myself shooting. But from what your saying, its not a good thing at those prices.

Of course you didn't see any other cameras, there backups just in case something happens. You do need bodies, lights and a lens for each. Working at such an important event and have a piece of equipment break down is a very nerve racking experience. BTW, I never shot a Wedding alone. I always had a Lightman with me and used a second light for most of the shots. Inside the Church during the Ceremony most of the time there is NO Flash Used. So now thats two people doing this job and trust me. You have to understand that a Wedding Job is only 8-12 hours for the Day. I am not even thinking about the time for color correction and showing the images on the Net. Then you have to print them and fine tune the Color for each print. For the price you mentioned, it wouldn't cover color correcting the Images a second time to make them worthy.

[Nikonfreak]

You couldn't get me to show up at a wedding with a camera for $150.00

I guess I have to ask where you live that the costs are that low? What does a location charge to have a wedding and what does a dress cost the bride? What would they pay for food and where would they hold a wedding and at what cost?

Can I ask what people expect to get out of their images at a wedding for $150.00 and what a photographer would offer at those prices? Much less what would they make as a profit?

I mean, I can get to $150 in cost in fuel just by driving out to a client to meet with them for an initial consultation / meeting. A wedding deal for $700 here is a bargain basement wedding package and the best they'd get is a box with 4x6 prints in it of about 250-300 images from the event. No book, etc....

[Not4wood]

Nikonfreak,

Your being very generous considering todays Gas Prices. But, again, it depends on where the OP is based out of.

Brides House, Church/Ceremony (depends on Religion), Park and then Reception.

Your talking about a full day of travel, gas and two men for a minimum of an 8 Hour Day. For $700 bucks you would get a string holding the photos together and not even a box.

[thebeing]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

You couldn't get me to show up at a wedding with a camera for $150.00

I guess I have to ask where you live that the costs are that low? What does a location charge to have a wedding and what does a dress cost the bride? What would they pay for food and where would they hold a wedding and at what cost?

Can I ask what people expect to get out of their images at a wedding for $150.00 and what a photographer would offer at those prices? Much less what would they make as a profit?

I mean, I can get to $150 in cost in fuel just by driving out to a client to meet with them for an initial consultation / meeting. A wedding deal for $700 here is a bargain basement wedding package and the best they'd get is a box with 4x6 prints in it of about 250-300 images from the event. No book, etc....

as i mentioned before (i did, didn't i?), i live in europe. Romania, and more exactly, Constanta. Life in Romania sucks. Like REALLY SUCKS! If you have a 500$ wage here it's considered decent. With 1000$ as a monthly sallary you're quite a rich guy.
But prices are pretty high (my so repeated example of a d40x kit being priced at around 900$ here).
And, to be honest, in that 150$, some post processing is included, too. My first "offer" was 150$ for about 1000 photos and some PP. It's too much work for too few money even for a starter like me. I don't think i'll take more than 300 photos for that price.
A box with 200 images at 4x6 in (that's 10x15 cm, right?) would cost here about 50$, so...if they want it, they'll have to pay for it.
Again, what i will do for that 150$ would be go at the wedding, take 250-300 photos, made a dvd slideshow and arrange some so that can make themselves a coffe-table album. I won't spend 1 cent (that is, about 0.025 Lei in my currency) for printing anything.
Anyway, i will spend some time trying to figure out how much the pro photographers ask and, since i'm a begginer, i think that 50% or a lil'bit less would be ok.

[dashu]

Mate, i know where you live, and how prices are here (I'm from Tulcea, Romania).

My opinion is that you should buy a D40 (non X), a lens like 18-135 so you will have the photoreach for the whole wedding, and a SB-600 (not SB-800 coz i have a feeling you can't aford to buy one yet ). AFAIK the Nikkor 18-135 are realy sharps lens, and you don't have to worry about CA (you will shoot a lot with the flash at the interior, and less outside in bright sun), and vigneting can be easely removed in almost any post processing software.

I know the quality people want here, and I how much will pay for that (in both cases that's not too much). If you know how to bounce with flash you will be considered as pro

P.S. There are weddings where people want realy good photos, and will pay for that, but those are too rare. And you can try to find a good D70, used ofcourse. There are a lot of people who still use the old and good D70